GUILTY UK - Kevin Pettican for child *advertiser censored*, Ipswich, Suffolk, 2010

New Posts

M

Missizzy

New Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
10,552
Reaction score
170
Another fox in the chicken house. Just like William Ayres and James Krivaksca, this slimy doctor trained and wrote about child protection!! No doubt he will find a million reasons as to why he needed to have child *advertiser censored* on his computer. But please note that he's not just charged with possession but also production of child *advertiser censored*. Released on unconditional bail. Does this mean, like with so many other wealthy offenders, that we'll spend the next five years looking for him while he continues his crimes?

http://www.eveningstar.co.uk/news/l..._465349?ot=archant.PrintFriendlyPageLayout.ot


Lecturer and child protection expert on child *advertiser censored* charges


"A UNIVERSITY Campus Suffolk lecturer and child protection expert has appeared in court on child *advertiser censored* charges. Kevin Pettican, a programme leader for social work at the Ipswich university, is facing nine allegations of making indecent photographs of a child and a further accusation of possessing indecent photographs of a child...."

and


"....The magistrates were told the allegations centre on 92 images. These images are said to range from level one to four. Level four is the second most serious category of child *advertiser censored*...."

and

"Pettican also focused on teaching and learning opportunities for child care and child protection professionals. He also spoke about working with non-government organisations and regional government to create a child protection system...."

more at link
 
From the link above:

"Kevin Pettican appeared at Ipswich Crown Court this morning where he admitted nine charges of making indecent images of children and one of possessing indecent photographs of children."


I'm assuming that "making indecent images of children" means the production of child *advertiser censored*. So this man photographed a child in an indecent manner. Shame. There is no way that this just suddenly "happened" at age 63. This highly respected man has traveled extensively. Hopefully past victims will now feel validated enough to come forward. My prayers are with his victims.
 
I am not defending the charges against Mr Pettican at all, but I did want to clarify that "making indecent images of children" is mainly related to the downloading of images from the internet. Therefore there is no proof from the articles relating to the case that he took part in the activity of photographing children.
I just wanted to say that because sometimes the wording of legal matters makes things appear as they may not be.
 
JohnnyCashFan said:
I am not defending the charges against Mr Pettican at all, but I did want to clarify that "making indecent images of children" is mainly related to the downloading of images from the internet. Therefore there is no proof from the articles relating to the case that he took part in the activity of photographing children.
I just wanted to say that because sometimes the wording of legal matters makes things appear as they may not be.
Click to expand...


I am not sure that you are correct. Downloading images is most commonly referred to as Possession of Child *advertiser censored*. Making Indecent Images usually refers to the Production of Child *advertiser censored*. Unless the definitions are different in the UK.
 
"The downloading and/or printing of computer data of indecent images of children from the internet, is capable of amounting to an offence of "making" the image contrary to section 1 (1) (a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. See R v Bowden [2000] 1 Cr.App.R. 438 (Archbold: 31- 108a)" (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/)

Mr Pettican is from the UK and the law under which he is charged would be British law.
 
JohnnyCashFan--You bring up an interesting point. No doubt there are some differences and I really want to understand just what Mr. Pettican has done. I very much want to educate myself about this crime.

The article states that "he admitted nine charges of making indecent images of children and one of possessing indecent photographs of children."

I'd like to understand how these charges compare with the US version--possession and production. Downloading images or videos or collecting print copies is typically called possession of child *advertiser censored*. Photographing children is typically called the production of child *advertiser censored*. I'd also like to understand why the charges use the words, images and photographs. Are the terms interchangeable or not?

Please, anyone jump in and correct me or help.
 
Not my favorite news source but I'll try anything I can to find info:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...experts-kid-*advertiser censored*-charge.html

"Prosecutor Shini Cooksley said the allegations centred on 92 sick images he is accused of possessing, ranging from level one to 25 pictures graded level four.

Level four is the second most serious category of child *advertiser censored*."


This tells us that 25 of the 92 images he possessed were quite horrid. However, it still does not address the "nine counts of making indecent photographs". It could be a technicality but I am still curious. I notice that each article is careful to say "possess the image" and "make the photograph". That's what concerns me.
 
A definition of the five levels of child *advertiser censored* in the UK:

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/key/ChildPornographyLaw

"...The UK Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) accepted, subject to one revision, the Panel's analysis of increasing seriousness by reference to five different levels of activity:

1) images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity
2) sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child
3) non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children
4) penetrative sexual activity between children and adults
5) sadism or bestiality


Just to be clear, Mr. Pettican possessed 25 images graded Level 4. Not OK.
 
I guess Mr. Pettican couldn't plead ignorance. Here's a powerpoint presentation he did with social workers urging them to "find the child's voice in your work" and reminding them about dignity and respect. He also helpfully points out that sexual abuse includes the exploitation of children through *advertiser censored*.

http://www.laurea.fi/internet/en/03...2_2009_week/Child_protectionKevinPettican.pdf

Mr. Pettican, the more I read, the more disgusted I am!!
 
What is wrong with these people? Do we have to start putting our guard up with every pediatrician, psychiatrist and other doctors who work with kids?
 
Mercyneal said:
What is wrong with these people? Do we have to start putting our guard up with every pediatrician, psychiatrist and other doctors who work with kids?
Click to expand...

Yes.
The predators hunt where they have the most and easiest access to the most vulnerable prey.
 
I believe the legal terminology is different in the UK.
Level 1 photos could technically be as simple as your own daughter in a swimming costume doing some kind of 'model' pose. I know some people have had pictures like that of their own children and been investigated. So for someone to be charged with that, it'd have to be viewed in context i.e. not their own children.
Beyond that, in my mind EVERY category of photos is wrong and like I previously said I do not even begin to defend the charges to which Mr Pettican has pleaded guilty and his background makes it difficult to 'stomach'.
However, I do feel it's important to be aware of the terminology. My Pettican's life will be very difficult now and most would say they don't care about that but he shouldn't be found guilty in society of a crime he may not have committed.
Also, newspapers select their wording carefully, that's how they sell papers. So there will always be an element of sensationalism.

And in terms of 'putting our guard up....". I think you do need to be aware. If someone has a predatory nature then it could be they go into a profession whereby they can be close to those they are a danger to. That isn't just limited to children, it could also be towards the elderly or those who can be 'overpowered' such as those with a disability.
 
Also, newspapers select their wording carefully, that's how they sell papers. So there will always be an element of sensationalism.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. Yes, newspapers sensationalize, however they are also generally careful to have their facts straight for fear of being sued. I can't see that they would change the wording of the charges against this man. I think the charges are what they are. Possession, as well as making child *advertiser censored*. They are two different activities that have been separately charged.
 
I agree Belinda. The news sources are typically overly cautious to get the wording on the charges right. Even with the various sources I looked at today, I say the same wording again and again.

The simple question for me remains. Was Mr. Pettican making or creating child *advertiser censored* with a child? That makes a huge difference to me from collecting *advertiser censored* already created. Both are vile. One, even more so.

With due respect, JohnnyCashFan, I think that Mr. Pettican's story is particularly unique in that he trained social workers in this area. He, more than most would fully understand the societal implications and the criminal ones. If his life is hard from this day forward, he made that unfortunate decision, himself IMO.

We also must remember that he's pleaded guilty to the charges. At least here in the US, that almost always is a tactic to prevent more information from coming out and to preclude the victims from testifying. That seems like a nobel act until you consider what all the victims might reveal that is not already known.

If anyone sees clarification on this case, please post.
 
Mr Pettican was charged with 'making indecent images of children' and 'possession of indecent images of children'.
'Making' refers to the reproduction of images, so downloading, printing, photocopying an existing images etc.
Possession relates to the image being on a hard-drive or somewhere in the house etc.
There is not any other information that suggests he was charged with any other crime.

Yes he did train Social Workers and is a Psychologist so there is no excuse as I can see it. But in modern society he cannot be guilty of a crime for which he isn't charged.
It will never be known if he pleaded guilty to protect himself from more information coming out, to protect his family from further 'humiliation' or for any other reason.
Taking away his profession/background, you can read any newspaper on any day pretty much and find similar charges involving far more images. There were 92 images in total apparently, even though this is very wrong in itself, in the grand scheme of offending this isn't a huge number. It's his background/profession that makes this more significant/shocking.
This does demonstrate that Police/background checks are only any good if you've been caught.

In regard to newspaper reports. Adding words such as 'Sickening' to the article could hype up the story. I mean it wouldn't be very interesting or attention grabbing would it if the story was just the facts and no 'filling'.
 
I don't need a reporter to add the word "sickening" to this story, JohnnyCashFan. I can do that for myself. Read the description of a Level 4 child *advertiser censored* image--"penetrative sexual activity between children and adults". That tells me all I need to know.

I'm afraid I must disagree further. No man admits to this type of crime to shield his family from humiliation. The "grand scheme of things" tells us all that this man is a sick pedophile. Plain and simple.
 
I am just trying to be impartial.
Views such as 'sick paedophile' may well be true if using the definition of sick as 'mentally ill'. I would be very surprised if many people with these 'urges' choose them when they deviate so far from the 'norm's of most societies.
Mr Pettican is a Psychologist and was very respected in his profession. He has lost everything. If he knows he is guilty then why humiliate himself and his family further by contesting the charges? He may be treated more harshly given his background.
Also, historically it has been demonstrated that sentences are reduced, by a third in the UK I think, for a guilty plea. This plea saves time, money and if appropriate the victims the experience of court. Again, if he knows he is guilty why contest it as he knows he may get a very harsh sentence already?
Knowing what the image grades are we all agree that what has been done and pled guilty to is wrong. We all want to protect our children and others whom are vulnerable from harm, but with the expansion of the different media forms it becomes more difficult. Encompass that with human curiosity, which may lead to further behaviour which deviates from the mainstream in some people.
 
From what I have seen of UK justice, I fully expect this guy to walk away with zero jail time. Furthermore, he will be provided a new identity and security by the justice system. We have seen this over and over again. These people are let go into society to rape and pillage as they so choose and are fully protected while doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 175 more.
Total: 4,111 (members: 176, guests: 3,935)

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
3,935
Total visitors
4,111
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,535
Messages
17,954,165
Members
228,524
Latest member
archangel78100
Back
Top